It is possible for an advocate to attach favorite causes to Veganism and it result in the listener becoming turned off by the package.

1. The author has already constructed “Veganism” as a whole, complete, entity. A solid being in which one can “attach” another issue like one would staple a flier to a telephone pole, or tape a card to a present. Concluding with “the package” reiterates that Veganism is a complete object, closed and sealed in plastic. That anything not in this package that is attached will distract from the true “Veganism.”

While I am not a particular fan of Sea Shepherd, this is a heinous event. However — I’m sure the rest of the vegan blogosphere will be talking about the event itself, so I’m not going to do that here.

I want to look at the reactions I’ve seen so far. One of the things most immediately apparent to me is the racism. It’s one thing to condemn the whalers for sinking the ship. It’s quite another to use language like “dirty Jap bastards” (offensive on two counts, how efficient!) repeatedly — as you can see on Facebook & other places. I’m just waiting for the Pearl Harbor references to start up. (EDIT: Someone suggests: “Would it be wrong of me to just straight out assault the jap consulate as he gets in his car to head over market and mission streets in San Francisco its time for some good old American Street Violence TL style” — lovely!)

Yet another reason why people of color may be put off by AR/vegan issues (it’s a real privilege to write off other issues as merely the “bruised feelings of some humans “; you can’t then be surprised if “some humans” want nothing to do with your offensive campaigns).

Fur is for beautiful animals & scary hookers, claims an incredibly fucked-up post at the Vegan Shoe Lady. She cites a Guardianarticle where Ingrid Newkirk is quoted as saying, “Fur has lost all its cachet. It’s yesterday. I see prostitutes in Atlantic City wearing fur.”

The Vegan Shoe Lady then takes this idea & runs with it, suggesting that if we see a woman wearing fur in public, we should make loud comments like, “She’s probably a hooker. Tacky coat, lower-class manners – no one respectable presents themselves that way.”

Her other suggestion, should you see a person wearing fur standing outside holding coffee, is to drop change into their cup, implying that they look like a homeless person. She offers this caveat: “Please treat actual homeless people with respect – they are human beings, and many of them have untreated mental illnesses. More than 80% of young homeless people are forced to leave home, often due to abuse. True compassion extends to disadvantaged people, too, so be nice.”

True compassion extends to disadvantaged people but apparently not sex workers. Or people at the lower end of the class system. Why should we play into the prejudices of certain segments of the fur-wearing population? The post points out that wealthy fur-wearers probably don’t care about environmental or animal rights issues, which I imagine is true. But I refuse to believe that perpetuating stereotypes, prejudice, & shame is the way forward either.

(Long-time readers of this blog will know that dog meat in particular has been a hottopic. Kindly refer to websites like Derailing for Dummies before making any tired, racist comments in response again.)

* Note: I know someone is going to bring up boycotts of apartheid South Africa; I don’t really think the two situations are parallel, for some of the reasons talked about in the post from the Vegan Ideal.

I’m really bummed I haven’t been able to post more here in the past few months — more about that later, maybe, but for now, a few links:

First of all, check out the blogroll (on the right hand side of the blog — click over if you’re reading via RSS feeds!). I keep stumbling on new awesome vegan blogs but also even more excitingly, more blogs by vegans of color!

Secondly, a link I’ve had open in a browser tab for literally months: Self-Delusion and the Lie of Lifestyle Activism. This argues that the impact of individual changes such as building a compost pile or recycling are generally not enough to make a difference (& in the case of the widespread habit of recycling, can be counterproductive because of the emphasis on recycling as opposed to reducing waste). This is partly because, the post argues, modeling a behavior is not generally enough to get other people to adopt it. I read the full post months ago & didn’t wade through the plethora of comments, but I’m sure being vegan would be something that the author would put under that category as well. I don’t agree with everything — though there are some good points made there — but I think as vegans & vegan activists there is a lot to think about regardless.

Thirdly, I saw the other day that Battlestar Galactica‘s Grace Park is now shilling for PETA. Sigh.

Right, now my query. This is generally not an easy time of year for me, between the darkening of the days (& the declining temperature) & the holidays. I’m doing a lot of work just to keep myself on any kind of even keel, but one thing that often gets put on hold is, well, doing activist things or even feeling excited or inspired by the issues. It’s not as if I’m contemplating stopping being vegan — that is most definitely NOT the case — more just that I haven’t had the energy or inspiration to go trawling through all the vegan blogs & campaigns & stuff that I used to do.

What do you do when you find yourself in kind of a rut? I know for burnout taking a break is a good idea, but it’s not that I’m burnt out (well: not in terms of veganism, although I did have a huge disillusioning infuriating situation earlier this year [related to other issues] that has made me really pissed off with certain aspects of the activist crowd where I live). I’m just kind of… maintaining at the moment. I want to be inspired & invigorated again (note: shock tactics won’t do the trick, so no one suggest I watch Earthlings, please). Suggestions?

Recently I picked up a magazine from UK animal welfare group Viva that featured an article titled, “Don’t Monkey Around, Go Veggie!” It discussed a campaign they’re running, which highlights the loss of biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest caused by the raising of cattle for meat and uses a monkey as the main visual (see this leaflet [PDF file]). A photograph shows campaigners on the streets of Bristol; one is in a monkey suit, & two others, who appear — as far as I can tell — white, have monkey masks on their faces. Behind them, on a table, is a stack of monkey masks, presumably to give to interested passers-by along with leaflets.

My first reaction was that I could never dress up as a monkey: as a person of color I’ve been compared to animals & specifically to monkeys, gorillas, or other primates way too many times for that to be something I’d feel comfortable with (for more on this from an Asian American perspective, check out the anthology Screaming Monkeys). I know a lot of people of color who would feel the same way; historically the very humanity of many of us has been questioned, & comparing us to animals used to degrade us & justify mistreatment.

If I were handed a monkey mask on the street & exhorted to wear it on behalf of the animals, I would refuse for this reason. It seems pretty clear that this association of certain types of people with primates — and not in an empowering, “we’re all animals!” way — was not considered in planning this campaign. Color me surprised (pun intentional).

It goes without saying that no one should shoot or otherwise be cruel to a dog, and that endangered species should be protected and nurtured. It is also probably true that Caucasians are currently overrepresented in the animal-based professions in America and Europe, just as they are overrepresented in the professions generally. PBS, which is usually pretty attuned to racial representation, shows a lot of whites on its nature programs too. But there are ways to present a certain unbalanced reality in ways that do not normalize or exacerbate it (and there is a large international population of animal professionals of color to be portrayed as well). Perpetuating colonialist notions of an ignorant and cruel populace, whether foreign or domestic, completely ignores contextual realities that might actually help solve the problem if they are acknowledged. (emphasis mine)